Reverse Domain Name Hijacking · UDRP

The domain lawyers who make complainants answer for abusing the UDRP.

When a trademark owner files a baseless UDRP complaint to grab a domain it cannot lawfully claim, a panel can brand the attempt Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. RDNH.net profiles five of the lawyers most often representing the domain owner when they were made.

86RDNH decisions across WIPO and Forum in 2025, up from 56 in 2024
~1.3%Share of UDRP decisions with an RDNH finding in Q2 2025, all providers
500thRDNH decision milestone reached in June 2022

Top 5 Domain Name Lawyers for RDNH Wins

Ranked by the number of UDRP cases in which a panel found RDNH against the complainant and the counsel appeared for the respondent, according to UDRP.tools (data as of 30 September 2026). See the methodology below.

About the data: The counts and case lists on this page were collected with the help of AI (Claude), which browsed UDRP.tools and ran the searches described in the methodology below. Please verify any figure against UDRP.tools or the original decisions before relying on it.

1

John Berryhill, Ph.D., Esq.

Domain name & IP attorney · United States
96RDNH findings as respondent's counsel

A fixture on the registrant side of the UDRP for more than two decades, Berryhill is regularly named in domain industry coverage for defending premium and generic-word domains, and for the RDNH findings that follow. He has also acted for complainants on occasion.

Registrant defenseGeneric & premium domainsWIPO, Forum & CAC

Recent RDNH decisions

  • Glide.ai · WIPO DAI2026-0029 (July 2026)
  • Katek.com · WIPO D2026-1093 (May 2026)
  • Gains.com · WIPO D2025-4698 (January 2026)
  • Upscaleavenues.com · WIPO D2025-4174 (November 2025)
  • Augment.ai · Forum 2177628 (November 2025)
2

ESQwire.com, P.C.

Ari Goldberger & Jason Schaeffer · New Jersey, United States
62RDNH findings as respondent's counsel

Founded by Ari Goldberger in the 1990s as one of the first firms built around internet and domain law. Goldberger and Jason Schaeffer defend domain owners and portfolio holders, and Schaeffer also sits in a global expert group considering UDRP reform.

Portfolio ownersLandmark disputesUDRP reform group

Recent RDNH decisions

  • Inyo.com · Forum 2216806 (June 2026)
  • Aablocks.com · CAC 108507 (May 2026)
  • Udistrict.com · WIPO D2026-0410 (March 2026)
  • Fitactive.com · WIPO D2025-4732 (February 2026)
  • Tyrone.com · WIPO D2025-1881 (July 2025)
3

Muscovitch Law Firm

Zak Muscovitch · Canada
36RDNH findings as respondent's counsel

Canadian IP lawyer and General Counsel of the Internet Commerce Association. Muscovitch has defended registrants under the UDRP and Canada's CDRP, and writes widely on RDNH trends and the case for deterring abusive complaints, including the responsibility of complainants' counsel.

UDRP & .CA CDRPPolicy advocacyDomain Name Law Reports

Recent RDNH decisions

  • Zember.com · WIPO D2025-5211 (February 2026)
  • Voicentric.com · WIPO D2025-5200 (February 2026)
  • Amexio.com · WIPO D2024-4344 (December 2024)
  • Upterra.com · WIPO D2024-3177 (October 2024)
  • KOF.com · WIPO D2022-2695 (October 2022), where the panel found that the complainant and its counsel had engaged in RDNH
4

Cylaw Solutions

Ankur Raheja · India
19RDNH findings as respondent's counsel

Cylaw Solutions defends domain owners in UDRP proceedings, including short-name and acronym domains. Ankur Raheja also writes UDRP case summaries for the Internet Commerce Association's digest. Six of the firm's RDNH cases list Raheja by name.

Short & acronym domainsWIPO, Forum & CACUDRP case commentary

Recent RDNH decisions

  • Fermec.com · WIPO D2026-1396 (May 2026)
  • Snglr.com · WIPO D2026-1004 (May 2026)
  • Vdft.com · WIPO D2025-4638 (December 2025)
  • Snsg.com · WIPO D2025-3736 (November 2025)
  • Edmi.com · WIPO D2025-2151 (October 2025)
5

Lewis & Lin, LLC

Brett E. Lewis & David D. Lin · Brooklyn, New York, United States
12RDNH findings as respondent's counsel

A Brooklyn firm whose partners, Brett E. Lewis and David D. Lin, handle UDRP and ACPA matters for domain owners before WIPO and the Forum. Its RDNH record runs from 2016 to 2025 and includes a recent WIPO decision where the respondent was represented by the firm.

UDRP & ACPAWIPO & ForumDomain transactions

RDNH decisions

  • Haulpay.com · WIPO D2025-0448 (April 2025)
  • Kvasir.com · WIPO D2023-2886 (September 2023)
  • Electrosoft.com · Forum 1969515 (December 2021)
  • Skycell.com · WIPO D2021-2472 (September 2021)
  • Streamlineservers.com · WIPO D2021-2255 (September 2021)

What is RDNH?

Under the UDRP Rules, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to try to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name. A panel can make the finding on its own initiative, even when the respondent never asks, and even in defaulted cases.

There is no fine or damages award. The consequence is reputational: the finding is public, can be cited in later cases, and increasingly names the complainant's counsel as well. Panels often point to ignored precedent, missing evidence of bad-faith targeting, and "Plan B" filings made after a failed purchase attempt.

Methodology and important notes

Data collection. The data was gathered with the help of AI (Claude) browsing UDRP.tools. Figures are reported as the tool displayed them on 30 September 2026 and have not been independently audited.

How the ranking works. Counts come from UDRP.tools, using the UDRP ruleset with the "Found RDNH" filter set to Yes and the lawyer or firm name entered in the "Respondent Rep" field, as of 30 September 2026. The five entries are shown in that order. Searches used these terms: "Berryhill", "ESQwire", "Muscovitch", "Cylaw" and "Lewis Lin" (typed without the ampersand, which the search does not match).

Limits of the data. The field is matched as text, so counts can miss variant spellings of a name and can include cases where more than one representative appeared. Firm entries count the firm's cases, so an individual's own tally may be lower or higher. Counts for the ESQwire lawyers combine the two attorneys and are not split between them. Only the UDRP is covered, not other policies such as the URS.

An RDNH "win" here means a case where a panel entered an RDNH finding against the complainant while the listed counsel represented the respondent. The finding is the panel's decision, and outcomes depend on the facts and the client in each case.

Corrections and additions are welcome at corrections@rdnh.net.

RDNH.net is an independent information site. It is not legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship, and is not a recommendation of any lawyer.

Sources